Ogletree Deakins: California Employer May Obtain Judicial Review of Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Decision | Practical Law

Ogletree Deakins: California Employer May Obtain Judicial Review of Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Decision | Practical Law

This California Law Firm Publication by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. discusses West Hollywood Community Health and Fitness Center v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, in which the California Court of Appeal reversed a Superior Court’s decision not to review a California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board finding that a claimant applying for unemployment insurance benefits was an employee, not an independent contractor. The Court of Appeal found that a writ of mandate should have been granted to the employer (a health spa) appealing the Board’s decision regarding a massage therapist’s employment status. The lower court had based its decision on the notion that when a tax payment is due, a party must wait to litigate and not seek a judicial determination until it pays the tax. This is known as the “pay first, litigate later” rule. The Court of Appeal found the rule inapplicable, reasoning that additional charges due to the employer’s unemployment insurance account (because of the Board’s determination that the claimant was an employee) were not a tax payment and that no tax assessment was pending. As a result, there was no bar to the employer seeking review of the Board’s determination.

Ogletree Deakins: California Employer May Obtain Judicial Review of Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Decision

by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Published on 30 Jan 2015California, United States
This California Law Firm Publication by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. discusses West Hollywood Community Health and Fitness Center v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, in which the California Court of Appeal reversed a Superior Court’s decision not to review a California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board finding that a claimant applying for unemployment insurance benefits was an employee, not an independent contractor. The Court of Appeal found that a writ of mandate should have been granted to the employer (a health spa) appealing the Board’s decision regarding a massage therapist’s employment status. The lower court had based its decision on the notion that when a tax payment is due, a party must wait to litigate and not seek a judicial determination until it pays the tax. This is known as the “pay first, litigate later” rule. The Court of Appeal found the rule inapplicable, reasoning that additional charges due to the employer’s unemployment insurance account (because of the Board’s determination that the claimant was an employee) were not a tax payment and that no tax assessment was pending. As a result, there was no bar to the employer seeking review of the Board’s determination.